These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

You're not actually going IN to an asteroid field!!

Author
FoxFire Ayderan
#1 - 2015-01-20 19:23:40 UTC
They'd be crazy to follow us.

Being a miner it's rather dangerous to actually be in the asteroid field among the rocks, given that should any gankers show up (or extra tough rats), you may have a difficult time getting out. Meanwhile the rats/gankers have 100% free and clear shots with no obstructions (not even the largest asteroids) to hitting you.

So, a smart miner stays well free and clear of the rocks they are mining, for ease of exit should it be needed.

And you don't get to enjoy the very cool effect of being in among the rocks (especially now with the update).

I think it ought to actually be of benefit to be in among the asteroids. Now granted it's probably a programming nightmare to make all the rocks be actual obstructions to gun fire. However, it ought to be significantly more difficult for rats (or gankers) to hit you if you are in among the asteroids. And of course difficult for you to hit back (if you are equipped to do so).

However any combat drones will leave the asteroid field to fight off attackers. And so they would actually become a threat to attackers who are getting hit by them, while meanwhile they are having great difficultly hitting you!

This makes more sense now too given there are all these little rocks around now. All these little rocks would deflect and absorb many shots on you, however they would not be an obstruction to getting up to warp speed as you just bump them out of the way. (Only the big rocks obstruct your path).

Perhaps there is a way to program this so that the deeper you are among the rocks, the greater the cover. And perhaps as asteroids are eliminated the amount of cover decreases.

Now.... let the griefer and ganker protests and wailing begin. Lol
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2 - 2015-01-20 19:26:06 UTC
Our ships come with shields and Armour too.
FoxFire Ayderan
#3 - 2015-01-20 19:30:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Our ships come with shields and Armour too.


Sure you can come in to the asteroid field as well, and maybe that would marginally increase your chance to hit, but it would still be more difficult. Perhaps based on some formula that considers the distance between the shooter and the mark and how many obstructions there would tend to be in that space.

Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2015-01-20 19:48:11 UTC
nothing exists for your guns but your target. that is, afaik, your guns will only interact with your target, there are no collisions to check. Collision checking is a resource hog, so Eve ships and stationary objects have some of the most simple collision meshes in any modern game. For example, you can't "bump" objects. you can bump ships, but if you drop a jetcan, its not anchored, but you can't bump it. asteroids are anchored in place, and your scenario eats up even more resources if they are to be mobile and interactable, bumping wise.

Missiles/torps can be interupted, as can bee seen from smartbombs, but i wouldn't want them impeded by 21st century space problems, or unbalanced simply because they don't act "real".

so an incredible amount of added complexity for... what?

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.

FoxFire Ayderan
#5 - 2015-01-20 20:01:04 UTC
Zimmer Jones wrote:


so an incredible amount of added complexity for... what?


This wouldn't be a collision check with any of the actual objects (asteroids and now the small debris).

It'd be a general modifier based on a) Where in the asteroid belt you are and where the attackers are, b) How many of the larger mineable asteroids are left, and c) The distance between the engaged ships.

So you would need to program a zone, say a long narrow box (tube) that wraps around the asteroid belt, and the further you are from the edges inside of that box the more protected you are, also the further length wise the attackers are shooting from the more protected you are.

So even for ships fairly close inside the belt, the to-hit chance is going to be a fair amount lower. However in some scenarios where they are shooting through a lot of asteroid debris, the to-hit chance is going to be markedly lower.

So. While there is still some danger to miners of getting caught up on a rock and not being able to quickly warp out, they will actually be more protected if they are in amongst the asteroids.

In High-Security space this could significantly add to the time it takes to destroy a mining vessel before CONCORD arrives.

Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2015-01-20 20:25:26 UTC
From someone who has been in the game industry, what you have said makes no sense.

Whats more, it makes no sense from a ganking/getting ganked angle either. If you're getting ganked at a belt, they will be on top of you, not sitting at 100, because close weapons do bigger damage when ganking. they will be in cheap fits because concord will blow them up after.

So, putting it simply, Ganker bob will be right next to ( maybe 2k away from) miner alice. miner alice is about 9k from a rock, staying clear to be able to warp out. Sitting at 100km, where your idea might make some kind of difference, the ganker would have to be in a very cost ineffective ship, or be using drones. If they are using drones, then damage is not affected, the drones are right next to miner alice.

There is no one helped by this idea



Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.

FoxFire Ayderan
#7 - 2015-01-20 20:50:51 UTC
Zimmer Jones wrote:
From someone who has been in the game industry, what you have said makes no sense.


I think I'll leave that for CCP to decide. Afterall they know how their game is programmed and what is or isn't feasible and what could or couldn't be done.

Zimmer Jones wrote:


Whats more, it makes no sense from a ganking/getting ganked angle either. If you're getting ganked at a belt, they will be on top of you, not sitting at 100, because close weapons do bigger damage when ganking. they will be in cheap fits because concord will blow them up after.



It wouldn't matter. Just being inside the belt is going to reduce the ability to hit the other ship. The further away the better yes, but the idea is that being inside the belt offers some protection regardless. You're more likely to escape or survive, and in cases where they haven't been able to manage to jump in right on top of you, you're even MORE likely to escape.

It makes sense, it gives miners (good guys) not only a reason to enter the beauty of the belt's interior, but also an additional chance over gankers and rats (the bad guys). And what is wrong with that?


Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#8 - 2015-01-20 21:19:26 UTC
Neat. So no downsides to the miner whatsoever!


Seems like a perfectly reasonable and balanced idea, and definitely not some halfbaked ganker fix.


...

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#9 - 2015-01-20 21:27:23 UTC
FoxFire Ayderan wrote:
Zimmer Jones wrote:
From someone who has been in the game industry, what you have said makes no sense.


I think I'll leave that for CCP to decide. Afterall they know how their game is programmed and what is or isn't feasible and what could or couldn't be done.


The rest of us know how their game is programmed too - it's called Stackless Python. Using it brought performance improvements, but has brought them problems too.
Lyra Gerie
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2015-01-20 22:11:33 UTC
It IS hard for attackers to hit you, profitably that is. Some groups are large enough they can attack indiscriminately for a larger purpose (like CODE) while others profit or boost their killboards through hunting down good targets.

Both sides take risk in their attacks, more so then your average miner takes with a little vigilance.

CODE being a larger entity takes risk in the form of possibly facing merc or even corp/alliance action against them for their actions should the miners have the forces or money to spend on such things. They're lucky in the sense that most HS industrial groups are so risk adverse and tend to lack a military arm to their alliance or corp (or don't even have an alliance) that this rarely happens.

The smaller entities have to ship scan and track characters to find profitable ganks. These guys are harder to deal with at times but the easiest way is to not be a target and to actually tank your ships. Having a logi or arming all your mining barges with logi drones can further protect yourself from ganking.

The fact is, when you go out to mine there is a slight chance of getting ganked. Where when gankers go out to gank they WILL lose their ships and unless they can kill you, will have nothing to show for it except for a security standings loss. They don't even make insurance money.



Here's a fun idea, overtank your ship and bait gankers to hit you then make isk selling the kill rights.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#11 - 2015-01-20 22:55:54 UTC
This would be awesome if it were a collision check, server load aside, but making it a static effect of being "in" the belt is silly IMO. If there were a way to code collision checks for guns without crashing the server in a 4-man fight, I think we would all come to love it. Fleet battles would get very interesting if you had a chance of hitting your own tight orbiting tackle if it was in just the right piece of space, or if objects did anything besides make bounce hazards. With that being said, I personally can't think of anyway to do this that wouldn't be a massive resource hog. A collision check would enhance the "strategery" behind fighting, so it would be cool, but I don't want to give up smooth gameplay to get it. Maybe in the future...

As for the OP -1, if you don't want to get hit, don't be there long enough to get hit. As for protection, it doesn't matter if you're taking 10% less damage if you're pointed, it will just take a little more damage to kill you. And if you're aligned out, like you should be, then either a) you get away or b) you wake up in station cursing CODE.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#12 - 2015-01-21 01:31:33 UTC
but my missiles hit you regardless how would you have this work?
FoxFire Ayderan
#13 - 2015-01-21 01:51:35 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
but my missiles hit you regardless how would you have this work?


Well you could certainly go into a bit more complexity for types of munitions, distance from say a missile explosion etc... They could get much crazier with the calculations if they wanted.

However, I was thinking a simple modifier to being able to hit the target regardless of anything but the three criteria I mentioned. Distance you are in the belt, how close the attacker is, and how many mineable asteroids are remaining.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2015-01-21 02:07:29 UTC
FoxFire Ayderan wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
but my missiles hit you regardless how would you have this work?


Well you could certainly go into a bit more complexity for types of munitions, distance from say a missile explosion etc... They could get much crazier with the calculations if they wanted.

However, I was thinking a simple modifier to being able to hit the target regardless of anything but the three criteria I mentioned. Distance you are in the belt, how close the attacker is, and how many mineable asteroids are remaining.



How do you modify the hit chance of a weapon that doesn't miss?
FoxFire Ayderan
#15 - 2015-01-21 02:35:30 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:



How do you modify the hit chance of a weapon that doesn't miss?


Really?

Missiles never fail to hit their mark? It's 100% guaranteed?



Andrew Indy
Cleaning Crew
#16 - 2015-01-21 04:20:02 UTC
LOl, When I started playing EVE I thought objects would provide protection.

Warped to a Anom in HS in a Noob ship or some other crappy frig with a terrible fit and took to much damage so I hid behind a large asteroid, Then I died.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#17 - 2015-01-21 05:26:05 UTC
FoxFire Ayderan wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:



How do you modify the hit chance of a weapon that doesn't miss?


Really?

Missiles never fail to hit their mark? It's 100% guaranteed?






Yes. Provided they reach their target in time.

Ummmm rather than going through all this, why not just have asteroid belts dramatically reduce the sig of ships inside. This would not only reduce the damage/chance to hit against a ship but also make the ship take longer to lock and scan down.

Thats if you like this idea in the first place.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2015-01-21 05:54:10 UTC
FoxFire Ayderan wrote:
They'd be crazy to follow us.

Being a miner it's rather dangerous to actually be in the asteroid field among the rocks, given that should any gankers show up (or extra tough rats), you may have a difficult time getting out. Meanwhile the rats/gankers have 100% free and clear shots with no obstructions (not even the largest asteroids) to hitting you.

So, a smart miner stays well free and clear of the rocks they are mining, for ease of exit should it be needed.

And you don't get to enjoy the very cool effect of being in among the rocks (especially now with the update).

I think it ought to actually be of benefit to be in among the asteroids. Now granted it's probably a programming nightmare to make all the rocks be actual obstructions to gun fire. However, it ought to be significantly more difficult for rats (or gankers) to hit you if you are in among the asteroids. And of course difficult for you to hit back (if you are equipped to do so).

However any combat drones will leave the asteroid field to fight off attackers. And so they would actually become a threat to attackers who are getting hit by them, while meanwhile they are having great difficultly hitting you!

This makes more sense now too given there are all these little rocks around now. All these little rocks would deflect and absorb many shots on you, however they would not be an obstruction to getting up to warp speed as you just bump them out of the way. (Only the big rocks obstruct your path).

Perhaps there is a way to program this so that the deeper you are among the rocks, the greater the cover. And perhaps as asteroids are eliminated the amount of cover decreases.

Now.... let the griefer and ganker protests and wailing begin. Lol


So the ganker would choose a cop ops as warpin. I don“t see an aprovement of the game here only more serverload.

And a maybe little cry because someone lost a ship to gankers.

-1
Krops Vont
#19 - 2015-01-21 06:22:37 UTC
Hmm.

Gameplay and features that help the game?

Lore and RP that would seem realistic in a submarine... space game like physics.

Ugh

--==Services==--

Propaganda/Art/Media

Wormhole Finding & Selling

o/ Play for fun

Lugh Crow-Slave
#20 - 2015-01-21 06:39:21 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
FoxFire Ayderan wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:



How do you modify the hit chance of a weapon that doesn't miss?


Really?

Missiles never fail to hit their mark? It's 100% guaranteed?






Yes. Provided they reach their target in time.

Ummmm rather than going through all this, why not just have asteroid belts dramatically reduce the sig of ships inside. This would not only reduce the damage/chance to hit against a ship but also make the ship take longer to lock and scan down.

Thats if you like this idea in the first place.



but that again affects missiles in a wired way why would you being in a belt affect the amount of damage my missile does to you. this is what i was going to suggest and then thought of missiles

even if we go with this ignoring why it affects missiles it would have a much greater affect on them than other weapon systems since sig is always taken into affect even if the target is going slower than the expl velocity
12Next page